Perhaps it's only the perception of someone who has been on BPL (hopefully) long enough to be accepted as a member of this great and unique community (with full acknowledgement and awe of the many people here with a deeper history than mine), but it does seem lately that the tone has . . . changed . . . in many threads.

In my opinion, one contributor to this is that a lot of people have had fun with the forums by repeatedly changing their names, usually to something humorous. They ARE usually funny and clever, BUT I also have enough history here to recognize many of the posters who have done that, by their avatars or just clues in what they talk about. Newer folks will not be able to do that. It can dehumanize the threads, making it easier to address others not by a name but a random and possibly meaningless identity that can lessen the respect and kindness that everyone deserves until they show that they do not. I think people should acknowledge their name and where they live, tempered by the many legitimate reasons that exist for keeping certain information off the web.

This is only my viewpoint. Many will probably not agree with me, but I'm sure we've all seen the callous or malicious trolling comments that follow almost any news story or posting on the web. We are not there, not even close, not by a long shot. I do think, however, that "signing your name" to any post is a way to accept responsibility for what one had written.

Finally, I don't know how Bob Gross feels but I really hope that he has found humor in "Gross Bob" because that one is downright funny.

If you click on a person it will tell how many posts that person made – not quite what you asked for

I don't quite get Cameron's joke about changing his name to Gross Bob. And are there other clones out there too? Are you being dis-respectful of Bob Gross? He seems like a decent person and doesn't deserve it, but probably Cameron and Bob are buddies and they're having a good laugh about it. There are many mysteries out there that I don't understand…

I removed my last name for a while. It wasn't worth it. If I can't put my name to what I say on here–or anywhere–I'm a coward for saying it.

Though the whole trip report things sounds interesting, I got bored with the whole genre a while ago. As someone who teaches writing and reading for a living, it's a formula that needs to move beyond its sophomoric horizons. Still, it's nice to see how much a person gets out, or doesn't. Not sure there's a perfect solution here other than transparency–which is itself only a consolation.

It's nice when usernames don't change too much. It can be a real name or a bogus username – it's all good – it's just a bit tricky when avatars and usernames are constantly changing so you can't recall who you're talking to.

I'm with Greg. It's got nothing to do with shame or anything being a taboo. I have an 'at work' me, and I have an 'everywhere else' me. I prefer not to be overly concerned with the joking I do here (and in person), something I would have to be concerned about were the two melded together. And I'll respectfully disagree with Clayton as well, it's got nothing to do with cowardice – it's simply a matter of common sense for some of us in the internet age/PC culture. Just talk to some younger folks who have had their futures impacted by things posted online.

It's important to draw a distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity. With pseudonymity, reputations get attached to the username, regardless of whether the username matches one's government ID. Someone changing usernames frequently can undermine the shared trust in the system. It is not the fault of people who aren't using their full legal names.

A desire for privacy is not the same as shame. Not all of us want our entire lives archived on the web for ready viewing. Google and Facebook have both, on multiple occasions, issued statements explicitly saying that this is a longterm goal of theirs. Millions of people seem a-okay with that, but as for me, sorry, do not want.

"Someone changing usernames frequently can undermine the shared trust in the system."

Agree for the most part. Steven Paris really drove this home for me in a recent post, which is why I went back to using my first name.

FWIW, the frequently changing usernames thing is pretty recent, and was just a bunch of us having fun – no ill intent intended. Most of the old timers always knew who I was regardless of what username I used, partly because the nickname never changes.

""I have tried to get my hiking life and real life separated as much as possible."

I'm no executive. But that statement makes no sense to me Greg.

Like backpacking is a taboo

What's the shame?"

Absolutely no shame. But if I get on a thread here and talk about the thru hiker experience where few possessions are needed or how I live to do another long distance hike, this could be used against me in a potential job interview. And today, employers do check your electronic footprint. I have no intention of making that job easy. And this is just one of many examples of something that would not translate over well between my two lives.

"But if I get on a thread here and talk about the thru hiker experience where few possessions are needed or how I live to do another long distance hike, this could be used against me in a potential job interview"

Wow. I don't understand the world at all anymore if either of those things are looked upon negatively. I'm running with a different crowd out here.

+1. I grew up with the internet. AOL 3.0 was my first web experience as a teenager. The difference for me (versus a lot of my friends and now students) is that I've always understood the internet to be a public place. These are open, recorded conversations. If I'm going to say something publicly, I intend to fully back it.

Though, I can sympathize with Greg's comments on wanting to thru-hike again and preferring that an employer not know until needing to be informed. Then again, some of those conversations are better left in private, especially because any employer who is really wanting to snoop won't have a hard time getting past an online pseudonym. Sadly, it's a pretty easy process, and I'm sure it is much more common than one might suspect.

" They get too personal, ask right back. They don't like it, well, you wouldn't like working there anyway "

ohh dear, aren't YOU the trouble maker.
but .. yes. they squim quite a bit when one entertains the effort of a proper "job interview". because, since they are intending to make quite some tidy profit on my labor, it would follow amy work is worth more than they are paying me, and therfore the one whose assets are at risk is not the employer, but the skilled employee.

peter op's that an HR dept that can't take some heat is useless staff, in a useless company , led by useless management.

my funnest question is to ask "how did we come to find this position open ? "
if the old fellow died or retired, it's all good, but if he drug up, ohh boy … watch them dance.
without fail they blame the old employee.
then i ask why, since he was so valuless, and they apparently hired him, are they qualified to know a proper technician if they saw one ?
(they are useually not)

Ken is quite right, in that some places are not worth being at.

there are other places that are good and decent, but not flexible enough to accomidate individuals coming and going for long periods. these shops make better customers for consultation and project based work than full time employment.

Except in our case we pay for the privilege.
Tell the average person that the govt. and every major corporation on the planet is tracking and storing everything they do and you'll be lucky if you get any more than a shoulder shrug and a response of "Well, I'm not doing anything wrong, so…"

"As someone who teaches writing and reading for a living, it's a formula that needs to move beyond its sophomoric horizons."

Clayton,

Would you mind elaborating on this point? It is pretty general as it stands, and of little practical use. Hopefully a professional like yourself can provide positive guidelines for writing a trip report at the junior level initially and eventually at the senior level with a little practice.

"Would you mind elaborating on this point? It is pretty general as it stands, and of little practical use. Hopefully a professional like yourself can provide positive guidelines for writing a trip report at the junior level initially and eventually at the senior level with a little practice."

Tom, that's a really good question, but–unfortunately–I don't have a better answer yet. I can elaborate, though, on some of my frustrations. Mostly, I find that trip reports focus on alternatingly on the events themselves as well as the psychological impact that they have. It's a kind of inner-outer narrative. That's not a bad thing at all, but generally speaking, when I read a trip report, the conventions of the genre cause the writer to lose a lot of his or her own voice in the process. With a few exceptions, it is difficult to tell one writer apart from another. Usually with writing, voice is something that is very evident, even among those who are not very experienced (I see this in my students all the time, from day one).

I don't think that the form of the genre needs to be chucked; though, I would like to see it expanded and played with. I wonder what a thematic trip report might be like, as opposed to the usual chronological one. –Or some other way of organizing the material. Probably the best thing, though, one can do to write better trip reports is to read high-quality nature writers. I cut my chops imitating Norman Maclean, and even thought it took me some time to grow beyond that, it was a good place for me to start.

Personally, I'd like to do some exploring with this in my own writing this summer. I made an initial attempt here, after a fishing trip in April, but my limited time right now–for both report-writing and trip-taking–has kept that goal on the back burner. When I get a break from this round of grad school classes some time in late July, I may try to do some real writing again.